"The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking." -Albert Einstein

Make Up Your Mind


Forget about Einstien and forget about Lorentz and ask yourself if the above is the proper way to solve the lorentz aether theory transformation or not. If you are married to relativity this may be difficult with what you now see. If you are a strong believer in relativity then remember that you don't believe in aether. This discussion is nothing more than a rhetorical logic problem. This is “sets of trains” moving through tunnels etc on a typical IQ test. You don't believe in the aether and perhaps Einstein had a very good reason to do things differently. Instead you must focus on the idea that what you have just been presented is an alternate theoretical physical reality in which aether wind strengthens the pull between atoms along the axis of the wind. Now prove your aptitude in logic by solving this IQ test question with the parameters given. What is the proper way to calculate the experience of clocks in a moving frame? Do you need to determine how much more they tick than stationary or do you need to determine how much less they tick than moving?

Should we eliminate motion for an apples to apples comparison? Is “time” the balancing factor to the equation or a doubly affected factor? Do events happen simultaneously (if with a strange perspective) from the two viewpoints in this perfectly logical and mechanical theoretical world or do we interpret that our math is telling us that reality no longer works? - IN THIS CONTEXT – Answer the question, does the math change the given parameters or do the parameters govern the math?

The only additional effect we have between frames is the shortening. The fact that it is caused by motion is irrelevant, yet misleading. We are attempting to determine what is different about the moving frame that makes it not have a classical experience. Shortening is the only thing that happens. It is however, a consequence of reducing the distance between atoms that communication between them can occur faster than they would if they were further apart. This will cause the perception of time to occur faster. This will cause electromagnetic properties to propagate faster within any material. Therefore everything from biological clocks to mechanical clocks will tick faster.

The only question that remains is "what about the additional distance they must cover overall?" The answer is that you haven't completed the transformation if you are still stuck back at that stage. The additional time that is required overall by the classically moving perspective cancels that out if you have formed your equation properly. Motion may be the cause of the effects but the effects of that motion are the balance to the motion itself. If you're still counting the motion then you should not be counting the effects thereof. If you are looking at the effects then you no longer need the motion. If you are counting both the effects and the motion simultaneously then you are causing a doubling. You are putting the cause and the effect both on one side of an equation uncanceled with the same sign instead of on either side of an equal sign.

By shortening an object you have altered the speed of light for that object. If you alter time as well you have altered the speed of light a second time.

Two alterations to time should be done but should you double, cancel, combine ...average? When viewing the problem from the stationary classical perspective, you are collapsing two operations into one and therefore doing a conceptual sort of "averaging" then adding in time effects which cause doubling.

The actual operation that should be carried out is to cancel! You must look at the speed of light to understand time:



Two Similar Operations Of Differing Effect


If we only shorten, then light speed for the lorentzian observer is still 1 units per second. Even though light only has to travel .866 of what a classical observer would have to for one tick of his clock, the lorentzian observer would still measure it as one full unit traveled because the distance light traveled is farther according to his shorter measuring stick. This means the clock would tick once for every .866 classical units light traversed but count it as 1 unit traversed. (more time and equal amount more units means light speed=1) But the shortened clock still ticked 1.1547 times in comparison to the 1 classical tick....


If we only dilate the time from the extra path length alone (wind), the dilation from wind would show light to travel 1.3333 units per second because 1.33333 units must be traveled as per the classical effect before 1 tick can occur. Fewer ticks but same units. Light traveled further during 1 tick. Time elapsed moving = 1 second, stationary = 1.333 seconds.


Notice these two situations are very different: the speed of light does not compare the same in both situations.

Shortening alone: 1.1547 more time elapsed. (time sped up) Light speed seems 1 {this is an unbalanced comparison} ->observer doesn't know time changed

Motion alone: .75 as much time elapsed. (time slowed down) Light speed seems 1.333 {this is a balanced comparison} ->observer knows time has changed


Combining the two is tricky. Order of operations is critical. Viewpoint is critical.


Motion causes a slower time and a reciprocal change to the perception of an increase in light speed. Shortening, however, speeds time up but does not cause the reciprocal change to the perception of light speed. If these two effects were comparable, then the time speeding effect of shortening should have changed the perception of light speed to .866 Therefore when shortening and motion are combined, the strange unbalance that occurs in shortening is applied to the wind/motion as well.


When combining shortening and motion there is a problem in the way each effect is applied. While the result of simply multiplying the two is .866 (the expected time dilation of relativity) the light speed change that occurs from motion alone is affected differently. The distance traveled by light according to the stationary medium is 23.094 (time as well) but according to the shortened observer it is 26.666 distance and but the time that occurred is 20 so therefore light speed seems 1.333 and as such we can see an increase in light speed that might be larger than one might expect. (Additionally the experiment believes itself to have traveled 13.333 units in 20 seconds and is therefore traveling at .5C)


We might expect that at .866, change in time should result in light speed seeming to be 1.1547 so what is the reason for this discrepancy? The shortening itself to .866 actually causes a reciprocal change to time and therefore light speed that cannot be seen from within that frame because of the lengthening of distances but the balancing effect may be overlooked if viewed from a different perspective. The seconds still tick faster and light still travels through its medium at a particular rate no matter how you measure that distance or how fast your clock ticks. If motion alone causes light to seem to move at 1.333 then time ticking faster seems like it should reduce the speed of light but distances still are longer by the same amount so only the effect of the wind carries over in considerations of light speed.


This difference between these two effects shows some of the necessity of them remaining separate operations which, if combined, might not calculate properly. The important difference between the two effects is that the unit shortening causes distances to lengthen.

Shortening increases light speed from our faulty intuitive expectation of .866 units per second to 1 unit per second when considered alone because although there isn't as far to travel for one second to occur (which would make light seem slower) the units themselves become larger so that the measurement of how far light travels in that second is larger by the reciprocal amount. It looks like light went further. More ticks but an equal amount more distance traversed.


When considered alone, shortening could be said to increase light speed because it increases the number of units light traverses when comparing frames and the same actual space traversed.

It could be said to decrease light “speed” because seconds tick faster. This makes it self balanced.(but ONLY from within the moving frame) It is balanced within its frame but is not balanced when compared to the stationary frame. This can be smeared across frames because, while the moving frame and the stationary frame both believe light to be traveling at 1 unit per second, the units are different. This is where many of the problems in Special Relativity come from. The two effects of wind and shortening are like apples and oranges and must be combined very carefully.


The effects of motion can be canceled out by the observer within his own frame because he is aware of it. It is the shortening alone which causes a real difference between the frames. Because the classical effect occurs in both frames, it needs to be cancelled. This means that the final true difference between frames is that 1.1547 more time elapses in a moving shortened frame. (time is faster) Make no mistake however! This is a motion-canceled calculation! The time difference because of the motion still exists when comparing stationary with moving. It is a classical effect that SHOULD be canceled when determing the difference between moving frames or stationary frames but should NOT be canceled when determining the total time difference between apples and oranges; the difference between stationary classical and shortened moving frames.


Wind dilation, a pseudo classical effect, is the larger of the two effects but shortening reduces the affect of the dilation. Both wind and shortening are dual effects. They affect light speed and time. Shortening is self-cancelling within a frame while wind can only be canceled in consideration of another frame.




Light Speed Anisotropy or Bust


So, when the experiment travels 1 unit stationary(1.1547 shortened), light has traveled 2 (2.3094)units. 2 seconds stationary has elapsed,

(A moving observers belief about light speed would be different depending on if he is always traveling and shortened or started out stationary. IE Was his “stationary” shortened?)

This is important: Shortened does not typically have a “stationary” comparison because motion causes the shortening. This is part of why it is a bad idea to try to compare it to a stationary observer.

It is better to compare moving to moving; to assume the moving observer has always been moving.


To determine time, we must calculate the event first according to the stationary observers units and seconds...


Light travels up a 8.66 long interferometer in 17.32 seconds and back down it in 5.773 = 23.094 While it seems that the total time elapsed is 1.1547 of the stationary, it also seems as though we could cancel out the motion and arrive at .866 because a moving classical observer would calculate it to be 26.666 There are a variety of effects occurring here including ending the experiment sooner.


Most importantly let us not use this for a comparison to stationary as seems intuitive, but instead use this as a calculation that is relevant for inside the moving frame:


We now know that a moving and shortened revolution takes 1.1547 stationary seconds. It also takes 1.1547 stationary units traveled by light. Therefore it seems time is occurring more slowly in the fully Lorentzian frame. Let us examine it thoroughly:

17.32 stationary seconds equals 15 seconds and 5.773 = 5 seconds in the Lorentzian frame.

Light traveled up the 10 units of the interferometer in 15 seconds and back down it in 5 for a total of 20 seconds. This frame measures light speed to be 1 unit per second.


15 up and 5 down Traveling a total distance of 20 This 3:1 ratio reveals the experiment to be traveling at .5C to the moving observer and Light traversed 20 total. He will know he must be moving.


He will then determine that if he were stationary, the total time that should have elapsed for the experiment would have been 75% of the current time. 75% of 20 seconds is 15 seconds. Therefore he will erroneously believe that a stationary observer will experience 15 seconds instead of 20.


Either light speed is detected as anisotropic by a moving observer or the whole theory is unsound. If light speed IS anisotropic then the moving observer knows he is moving. Hence only the shortening is relevant and undetectable. Motion should be cancelled for a true transformation. Then we are left with time actually being faster in a shortened frame. We have two very different calculations: 1) For Wind: @.5C A clock will tick .75 as many times 2) For Shortening: An object shortened to .866 will experience 1.1547 as much time.



Time and Perceptions


It is important to note however that the classical wind effect, in contrast to shortening, is not truly affecting time per se, just the perception of it....

At .5C; If the interferometer classically takes a total of 1.333 the amount of time then seconds will tick at .75 the normal rate.

Therefore a .5C moving interferometer will detect the upstream 20 stationary seconds as 15 seconds and the downstream 6.666 seconds as 5 seconds. This means that its clock will tick the normal 20 seconds that a fully stationary clock normally would. But his clock will read 20 when the stationary clock reads 26.666


According to the moving observer however, Light travels 1.333 units per second! Everything occurs faster for the moving observer. At 1.333 units per second for 15 seconds it is a total of 20 units up and 6.666 down ; more events occur in the same time; the moving observer can detect his own motion and cancel it. He would just feel like the world is running around faster than normal.


It takes time to travel distance and a moving observer always knows he has traveled further than the stationary observer because the speed of light in the medium remains constant with respect to the medium so therefore the moving observer does not in-fact experience less real time. When your clock ticks slower, events occur faster because light travels farther during that “Time”. It was just a number that wasn't meaningful to events. It is an illusion. Cups seem to fall faster when you knock them off the table. Planes seem to fly faster. Everything seems faster but that is only a perception of the moving observer. The exact same events happened and the same distances travelled etc that a stationary observer percieved. They only experienced things differently. If you shorten a spaceship and walk from end to end you've still traversed a full spaceship. In the same way, regardless of your perception you traverse the same time span.


When only shortening however, the effect is a little different. Because distance is measured as further while the distance between atoms is shortened, time is affected differently. Additionally, it is not possible to detect the shortening. For instance, when an interferometer is shortened, then light speed for the shortened observer is still 1 units per second. Even though light only has to travel .866 of what a classical observer would have to for one tick, the shortened observer would still measure it as one full unit traveled because the distance light traveled is farther according to his shorter measuring stick. This means the clock would tick once for every .866 classical units traversed but count it as 1 unit traversed. (more time and equal amount more units = light speed=1) But the shortened clock still ticked 1.1547 times in comparison to the 1 classical tick....


Once again, the way this observer marks events down is changed but the actual events are unchanged. The change this observer would have to his perception of the world would be unlike the classical-motion-altered observer. For instance... a cup falling off the table might take 3 seconds to a stationary observer and fall 3 feet, but to a shortened observer the same cup might fall 5 feet in five seconds. The object looks larger, falls further and takes “longer” to get there, but the actual event is, of course, the same event viewed by a smaller observer. The actual perception might be interpreted as being balanced such that while there is more of everything, the events “feel” like they happen at the same rate as normal because they are proportionate. It might feel like being in a giant's house.


Do we define time as the change rate of reality or do we define time by our perception of it in ticks on a clock? Which takes primacy, our perceptions or something exterior?

The important fact to take away is that there is a separation between perception and reality. This difference between perception and reality was first smeared and clouded in science by relativity and specifically because of the removal of aether. In relativity we accidentally mathematically confuse perceptions with factual reality. This is the central point of failure in the intellectual advancement of the human race.




Operating Opposites (detailed OoO)


@ .5C

With the classically moving observer, light traverses 1.333 units per second and they observe it travel 26.666 units in 20 seconds (stationary sees 26.666 units in 26.666 seconds)

With the shortened (only) observer, light traverses 1 unit per second and sees it travel 23.094 units in 23.094 seconds. (stationary sees 20 units in 20 seconds)


Let's now attempt to combine effects (combining balanced with unbalanced):

(1.3333 times the .866*2)/2 to determine the stationary measurement. (IE:Classical wind effect times shortened stationary distance) Which results in the 1.1547 stationary units traversed by light required for the moving and shortened object to have one “tick”. 1.1547 stationary units converts to 1.3333 moving units observed as traveled by light according to the moving observer's estimation during one tick of its clock. This means light calculates to 1.3333 units per second.

Shortening and Motion: .866 as many ticks can occur (time slowed) Light speed seems 1.333


Step-by-step:

Shortening-Only First.

If we only shorten only, then light speed for the lorentzian observer may seem to be 1.1547 units per second because it only has to travel .866 of what a stationary observer would have to for one tick.

But then we realize that 1 stationary unit measured by a .866 ruler would equal 1.1547 units for the shorter observer.

While light travels 1 unit stationary, 1 tick of the stationary clock happens.

With that same light, the shorter observer measures it to have traveled 1.1547 of his units.

With that same beam of light, the shorter observer's clock ticked when it reached the .866 mark of the total distance light traveled.

This means it ticked a total of 1.1547 times (time sped up)
This also means that the moving observer would believe the speed of light to be 1 unit per second...


Motion Only.

Then if we dilate time because of motion only, then we find that:

While light travels 1 units stationary, 1 ticks of the stationary clock happen.

That same light causes the moving clock to tick only once as light reaches 1.3333 of his units. (units unchanged)

The moving observer believes the speed of light to be 1.3333 units per second. (time slowed)



When we combine both effects simultaneously, things look very different:

While light travels 1 units stationary, 1 ticks of the stationary clock happens.

(shortening)With that that same light, the shorter observer measures it to have traveled 1.1547 of his units.

(shortening)With that same beam of light, the shorter observer's clock ticked the first time when it reached the .866 mark of the total distance traveled because of shortening

(motion)but the total distance traveled gets lengthened because of the fact that 1.3333 times more space is traversed by light.

Therefore .866 *1.3333 = 1.1547 is the distance that must be traveled by light for the moving clock to tick once.


IE: On a ten unit interferometer with light traveling at 1 unit per second in the stationary medium:

The light strikes the leading mirror when the stationary clock reads 17.32 and then returns 5.7735 seconds later at 23.094 stationary. The moving observer, however, can hold a variety of beliefs about the event depending on if it is aware of the stationary frame or not. Regardless of this, light will traverse one side faster than the other. Additionally, the moving clock will tick at .866 the rate of the stationary meaning it will see light strike the leading mirror after 15 seconds and return five seconds later at 20 seconds.


The proper wind calculation must be done in the classical frame only (because of unit distance changes) whereas the number of ticks may be more flexible.


When calculating wind it is critical to change the stationary units instead of the moving units. IE 1.33 additional stationary units traversed because of wind is totally different than 1.33 “moving” units (which are more plentiful). Without ether, relativity cannot make this important distinction in the order of operations. This is tangentially related to some of the problems of relativity.

For instance: If we assume that the moving frame ticks faster because it is .866 the distance between atoms. We could then look at the distance that frame believes is being traveled during the experiment. It believes light traversed 20 units upstream and 6.666 down. If we then apply the effects of wind (1.333) then we erroneously arrive at a distance of 35.555 stationary units traveled. Even in some scholarly discussions of relativity, strange miscalculations like this tend to appear because of these incorrect perspective shifts which happen once the universal reference point is lost.



Non-Reversible “Transformation”


The moving frame does in-fact experience less time than the stationary clock but that is not a transformation but a comparison. (it also experiences more distance) It is a partially completed transformation. If the additional distance is not included with the additional time it is a comparison, NOT a transformation. When you include the additional distance with the time, then it becomes a transformation. The reason is because this is a two step process represented in one step. Is your transformation from the stationary to the moving, or is it from classical to shortened? If we go directly from classic stationary to Lorentzian moving, we have completed two steps simultaneously. When we determine the "time" difference in this way we have abstracted two apposing calculations. Time from shortening and time from motion.

A completed transformation views everything from within the transformed perspective. The comparison looks at one particular perspective from another. IF we forget this, we can accidentally cause a duplicate calculation. We must recognize that when we speak of the Lorentz transformation that it is a comparison of the stationary classical perspective to the moving shortened one. If we fully transform into the moving perspective we will get a slightly different result. (Classical-stationary-to-shortened-stationary or classical-motion-to-shortened-motion)


IE: While we can say that the Lorentzian moving clock ticks .866 as many times as the classical stationary one. The way the Lorentzian perspective views itself is not the same.


When you have a mechanical aether you can easily see that a shorter object also must travel farther. It may be shorter but that results in distances being farther. Without ether, relativity loses this critical component of understanding the problem. It's what makes Special Relativity “special”..


For instance:

Using our same example, a Lorentzian moving shortened interferometer experiment that is traveling at .5C will be viewed from and by the stationary perspective as follows:

The light will travel upstream for 17.32 seconds according to the stationary observer and 5.773 seconds downstream for a total of 23.094 stationary seconds.

17.32 stationary seconds equals 15 moving seconds and 5.773 = 5 seconds in the Lorentzian frame. (given that we know the difference between stationary and moving-shortened is the relativistic expectation)

Light traveled up the 10 units of the interferometer in 15 seconds and back down it in 5 for a total of 20 seconds lorentzian. Based upon this, on-average this frame measures light speed to be 1 unit per second if it doesn't know it is moving. (If it knows it is moving however, then it measures the whole trip as 20 up and 6.66 down = 26.666 lorentzian and measures light speed to be 1.3333 units per second)


Notice 15 up and 5 down traveling a total distance of 20 This 3:1 ratio reveals the experiment to be traveling at .5C to the moving observer and furthermore gives the traveling observer the ability to extrapolate the knowledge that Light traversed an actual 26.666 lorentzian units total. The moving observer will know he must be moving.


(Keep in mind that Relativity assumes the observer ignorant of their motion and what is worse, forces light to “believe” it has traveled a shorter distance. By this I mean that a relativistic calculation forces a faulty perspective of distances traversed. The logic failure occurs before any math occurs)


However, even if we do not use our observation of the light speed anisotropy to find the distance to be longer, then when we reverse our conversion to go backwards (moving ticks slower by .866 so stationary ticks faster by 1.1547) we will have an error: Transforming back from the lorentzian perspective's time of 20 seconds results in 23.094 seconds for a stationary experiment.

If we use our conversion to try to go back we will get 23.094 for the total time for a stationary observer. This is not what a stationary classical experiment would experience!! It is however what a stationary observer would perceive about the moving observer's experiment! (We reverted to a self-referential perception, not another actual frame) But we have just seen where, how and why it seems that each frame can see the other as slowed!!!


What this reveals is that the Lorentz transformation does not transform from one set of experimental events to another set of experimental events but from one perception of a single event to another perception of that same event. From perception-of-experience to experience. An external view to an internal view. Not internal-view to internal-view.


Because it is non-reversible, it is not an actual transformation...


Since the moving observer knows he's moving @.5C he could also determine that if he were stationary and he could account for the 1.333 effect of motion, the total time that should have elapsed for the experiment would have been 75% of the current time. 75% of 20 seconds is 15 seconds. Therefore even with this method he will erroneously believe that a stationary observer will experience 15 seconds instead of 20. Furthermore, even if we then add back our difference of time then we will believe that the stationary observer will experience 1.1547 additional time which only adds up to 17.32 which is is also incorrect. (this happens in-part because shortening lengthens distances and self-cancels thereby becoming invisible inside the frame)


Note that it seems like the stationary frame's time seems to run slower (incorrect calculation) to moving observer. This mathematical illusion fooled Einstien.

Because of the balanced nature of shortening, our Lorentz comparison can be a non-reciprocal method of calculation if we attempt to use it as a transformation. The difference is a simple change of viewpoint. If we ever actually move our view into the pseudo-transformed perspective(frame) we cause an error. So long as we remain always in the frame of the stationary viewpoint there is not a problem. Our perception of their perception is not the same as their perception of their perception.




The Perceptual Slight of Mind


If we go back to looking at our transformation as we did in the previous section, we can see that there are only three figures for time that we would regularly encounter once we have thrown away all the dynamics happening under the hood and just start examining a large number of problems simply using the transformation instead of going through the process of developing it. Those three figures in this case are 20 seconds for a stationary experiment, 23.094 for a stationary perception of the moving frame and 20 seconds for the moving frame's perception of itself. Basically it seems like there are only three perspectives. We'll find those three perspectives for any speed and the first and last will always match. If we, for instance, were just students using a working the formula repeatedly to solve different versions of the same thing we would regularly see these three come up. Just like Einstein would only see these three things come up regularly because he did not derive or invent the Lorentz transformation, he only used it.


When only seeing these three perspectives over and over, it might seem that they are the only ones that really matter. It may even seem that the equality of the numbers between the moving frame's perspective of itself and the stationary frame's perception of itself might be meaningful. The fact that there is only the transformation from 20 up to 23.094 and then back down to 20 might lead one to believe that the perspective of any observer is indistinguishable from any other.


If you were, for instance, to find that the transformation wasn't properly reversible. That is: when you transform from the stationary perspective into the moving one you get 20 seconds but then when you transform back you end up at 23.094 instead of 20 seconds which is the actual time for a stationary experiment, you might then assume that any moving observer sees the other observer's time as running slower....


This should be an eye opening moment for you the reader. Either you begin to see the reason for Einstein's mistake or you are incapable of holding a large enough context in your short term memory and therefore default to some preconceived beliefs and fall into the same trap as Einstein.



Without aether, the confusion caused by shortening - The discrepancy between the concept of a shortened frame (implied shortening of space as well) and shortened object which then measures space as further - is compounded by the way this mechanic interacts with time. Shortening alone does not change light speed for the observer in motion because of a simple illusion, whereas aether motion does change their perception of light speed. Shortening, without aether, however causes people examining this problem to conceptualize space to be shortened as well thereby causing light speed to be changed without their calculation or perspective about it being changed. The change in concept changes the distance light travels without changing the expected perception of light speed. With this small perceptual shift, light speed, which was calculated as 1 unit per second because of an illusion, is still calculated as 1 unit per second but factually, the physical model and reality of that perceptual shift would reveal that light speed was changed dramatically.


If we go back to examining physical effects, we'd find that attempting to “shorten their space” is a completely illogical operation which is subject to interpretation. Now how far does light travel with respect to the stationary observer? Is the light traveling in the stationary space or the shortened space? It was only 1 unit per second because the observer perceived the same space differently. Now we've changed a faulty perception into a faulty reality. The same space now IS different. This is all just a subtlety in the way “shortening” is conceived.




Splitting the Universe


With physical shortening alone, 23.094 stationary goes up to 26.666 moving perception. With aetherless “space shortening”, 23.094 is seen as 20 and then drops down to 17.32.


With the physical shortening concept, more units fit in the same distance. When we shorten their “space” only, the precise opposite happens: Fewer units fit in the same space. But in addition to this, because this isn't just a trick of perception, there is literally less actual space for light to travel through as well. Not only does the unit comparison between frames change in the opposite fashion, the actual distance to traverse is changed as well. There is a change inside the frame and out. Two complimentary changes.


They measure the distance we would measure as 23.094 as only 20. (Relativity causes the second change to happen in the discontinuity of the frames by the change factor) Light no longer has to travel 23.094 units but instead only has to traverse 20 units. This change in distance would result in a disagreement about light speed between frames... but only if light reached the same place at the same time in both frames.


A correlate of splitting the universe in this way is that our “shortening space” conceptual shift can be complimented by a time dilation perceptual shift. Instead of time only seeming to elapse differently because of perception, like Lorentz envisioned, in this separate universe we've created, perhaps time literally elapses differently. Consequently, light doesn't travel simultaneously between frames. (a truly asinine concept)


If light reaches the same points at the same moments, then if it travels at one unit per second in the stationary frame, it travels only .866 units per second in the moving frame. If it travels one unit per second in the moving frame then it travels 1.1547 units per second in the stationary frame. Light cannot serve as a constant while this discrepancy remains.


With our new concept of non-simultaneity, we can simply shift the difference between the frames by the change factor. The actual events can be shifted by the change factor to allow both frames to agree that light travels at one unit per second.


If we use the standard that light travels 1 unit per second in the stationary frame but simultaneity between events would cause it to move .866 units per second in the moving frame, we can instead say that the moving frame's events lag behind by 86.6 percent. Therefore when we believe that the event has completed at 23.094 seconds stationary time and that 20 seconds have elapsed in the moving frame, the truth is that the moving frame has only truly experienced 17.32 seconds of the expected 20. The two frames don't agree on where the experiment is even though they agree where it will end.


Notice that with this idea, we have a sort-of two steps forward and one step back methodology and if we allowed the idea to run further it would take 26.666 stationary seconds for the moving experiment to complete. (though this is an overly simplistic way to state it)


At this point we have all but developed special relativity. We are within striking range...


It seems as though the adjustment between frames and the adjustment in time and size are all part of the the same operation but the fact is that the misconception of “shortening space” is a double operation which allows us to create a mathematical double operation. Two steps in the same direction instead of opposing steps. Instead of making opposite steps in opposing frames, two complimentary steps are made in one frame. This is the reason for all paradoxes in SR.


The fact still remains, however, that all of these calculations and subsequent re-purposing are still entirely based upon a mechanical wave's behavior and motion through its medium in the context of a moving interferometer experiment.